Maxine & Ted -- Don't Call Us If You Call Us Terrorists!

On October 23rd, Congress voted to stifle Americans' right to dissent when it passed House Resolution 1955, the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007," sponsored by California Congresswoman, Jane Harman. In sanctioning the ambiguous definitions for "homeland terrorism" contained in this bill, Congress equated American participatory democracy to American "homegrown terror." The First Amendment is under assault:

H.R. 1955 DEFINITIONS:

(1) COMMISSION- The term 'Commission' means the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism established under section 899C.

(2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term 'violent radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.

(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term 'homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term 'ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.

Despite the ambiguity of the language in H.R. 1955, it still passed the House by an overwhelming 404 to 6 -- rammed through by Jane Harman, under the guise of deterring another American mass murderer like Timothy McVeigh.

Point of fact: In recent years, America's most horrific mass murderers have primarily been teenagers -- Columbine's Harris and Klebold, and the Omaha mall shooter, Robert Hawkins, to name just a few. Virginia Tech 23-year-old college student, Seung Hui Cho, murdered 32. None of their "plans" would have been detected and prevented if H.R. 1955, or its Senate clone, S. 1959, had been in place at the time.

Among the 404 deluded Congress members who voted for H.R. 1955 was California Congresswoman Maxine Waters -- one of the few progressive heroes in the House. Odd that Congresswoman Waters would support legislation laden with such ambiguous language. The definitions in this bill are written so broadly that nearly anyone can be accused of planning or threatening terror if they disagree with their government and attempt to alter policy. Considering Congresswoman Water's fabled advocacy for participatory democracy, one might conclude she hadn't adequately read the bill before voting for it.

Underscoring this contention was Congresswoman Waters' apparent lack of understanding of the blow-back from this bill. In a December 10th interview on Lila Garrett's KPFK Pacifica Radio talk show, "CONNECT THE DOTS," the Congresswoman said the following:

"I do think that the American public, who have shown through the polls that they want to end this war on Iraq, have not gotten angry enough and they're not doing enough to force their elected officials to fight."

By imploring Americans to get angry and "force their elected officials to fight," Congresswoman Waters is asking her "homegrown" supporters to carry forth actions that H.R. 1955 characterizes as "terrorism." With H.R. 1955 in place, if non-violent anti-war activists make a plan to force the "furtherance of political or social objectives," they meet the bill's criteria for "homegrown terrorists."

Tragically, Congresswoman Waters' support for H.R. 1955 has endangered the rights of her supporters.

I'm a huge admirer of Congresswoman Waters. I know how seriously she values free speech, peaceful assembly, and the freedom to petition the government as ordained by the First Amendment. I was surprised and dismayed that she supported this bill. When I called her office last Thursday to get a statement as to why she had, I was told by a staffer that the Congresswoman had asked to see the bill just moments before.

It wouldn't surprise me if the Congresswoman did revisit her support for the bill after the people so vocally opposed it. She may have even instigated the formal written defense (pdf) of the bill issued by the House Majority Staff in response to the public outrage.

However, THE PEOPLE are so incensed by this bill that the "official" House response has not allayed their concerns in the least. The language of the bill has not been altered or improved upon and remains as inept as the Homeland Security Department charged with overseeing it.

To be fair, there is legitimate rationale for vigilance in protecting the nation. Violence of any kind is intolerable -- which explains why millions of Americans oppose the current Bush regime. It deems pro-peace groups un-American and imprisons their members routinely. CODEPINK is a prime example.

During one week in 2004, over 1800 non-violent Americans were arrested and jailed during the Republican National Convention. Some have been harassed and arrested for T-shirts. Some for the bumper stickers on their cars. Should it be any wonder why millions of Americans are suspicious that at the very start of the 2008 Presidential election year, H.R. 1955 is born?

A nation that views its own people as enemies creates laws to suppress them. A Congress that ignores the will of its people creates laws to redefine them. Homegrown activists become homegrown terrorists. Per the vague designations in H.R. 1955, activists and terrorists are the same.

The Senate version of H.R. 1955, S. 1959 is scheduled for vote this week. Last week I called Senators Boxer, Feingold and Kennedy to see how they would vote. I got a "we don't know yet" from Boxer's office. A staffer for Feingold said his Senator would vote against it because it stifles free speech. Since Feingold was the lone Senator to vote against the PATRIOT Act, I'm hopeful his staffer is correct.

My call to Senator Kennedy was prompted by the same rationale as my call to Congresswoman Waters. On December 7th, in an article on the HuffingtonPost, Senator Kennedy vented his anger over the CIA's destruction of the prisoner interrogation tapes. According to Senator Kennedy:

Because these tapes constituted necessary evidence for the 9/11 Commission, their destruction was illegal under "Section 1512 of Title 18 of the United States Code [which] makes it a felony to "corruptly alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal a record, document, or other object... with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding."

At the end of his article, Senator Kennedy made a pronouncement and a request to supporters. He said:

"I'm headed to the floor to demand answers. I hope you will demand them as well."

If Americans respond to Senator Kennedy's plea to 'demand answers,' and devise a plan to force the "furtherance of political or social objectives," they too, can be designated "homegrown terrorists" if S. 1959 is passed. These dutiful patriots would be going forward at Senator Kennedy's behest, employing acts he defined as "homegrown terrorism" if he votes this legislation in place.

But this won't be the case if Senator Kennedy and his Senate colleagues vote NO on S. 1959. If they vote it down, they earn the right to engage their supporters to act on their behalf. If they vote for it, they forfeit the right to put citizens at risk by requesting their help.

One can only hope that Senators Kennedy, Boxer and Feingold, and their 97 colleagues, won't make the same mistake in the Senate that Congresswoman Waters and 403 of her colleagues made in the House. When Legislators place Americans in the precarious circumstance of teetering between activist and terrorist, they forego all claim to public support.

The current government, including the Homeland Security Department which will oversee this bill, has been incompetent in intelligence gathering again and again. Just last week, the domestic terrorism case against the so-called "Liberty City Seven," ended in a mistrial. According to The Washington Post:

"Evidence presented at the trial portrayed the "Liberty City Seven" as a group of somewhat hapless low-income laborers, and defense attorneys said the men had become ensnared in what they characterized as an overzealous FBI investigation."

If S. 1959 passes the Senate, unfounded cases like this will occur with greater regularity. Whomever the government seeks to silence will be subjected to reprisal, fomented by a purposely ambiguous law.

It takes just one Senator to put a HOLD on a bill to stop it indefinitely. Right now it appears that Russ Feingold of Wisconsin may be the one Senator who will do it. It would be particularly significant if the four Democratic Senators running for President would come together to stop this bill. Senators Clinton, Obama, Biden and Dodd should demonstrate their leadership by quelling this assault on dissent. Senator Dodd has already shown his heroism by challenging retroactive immunity for telecom companies. He should not be the only one! Senators Clinton and Obama should demonstrate respect for THE PEOPLE by not voting against THE PEOPLE'S rights. Removing THE PEOPLE'S freedoms is a symptom of fear - not valor.

Senator Kennedy uses his family tradition to ask Americans to participate in their nation. With a belief in participatory democracy that deep, he should stop this bill.

Senator Boxer, who regularly recruits activists to push through legislation, should also stop this bill. According to Marcy Winograd, President of Progressive Democrats of Los Angeles, who challenged Harman for Congress in 2006:

"Senator Boxer, one of our more courageous lawmakers, needs to put a hold on this bill before we see a return of the McCarthy hearings, with committees interrogating conscientious Americans who have spoken out against the war and globalization. This legislation ostensibly targets those who promote violence and extremist ideology, but if that were really the case the lawmakers supporting this legislation would be impeaching and indicting George Bush and Dick Cheney."

This First Amendment assault crosses party and ideological lines in the same way as media consolidation. Progressives and conservatives alike deplore the suppression of freedom. Even the ultra right wing John Birch Society opposes H.R. 1955 and S. 1959.

This week the Senate can support the First Amendment, or let the First Amendment die. S. 1959 must NOT pass. Tell your Senators to vote NO on S. 1959.

Email them at: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Phone them at: [phone]

Comments

[GrauWulf]

Do not allow fear or paranoia, laziness, ignorance, or greed for power, or vanity of political posture to move us to avoid the difficult demands of Democracy and Justice and allow this degradation of Law and Freedom.
Yes, It is very scary and upsetting when terror in any form hits close to home. But that does not justify blind vengeance, nor unfettered actions. 1st we must recognize how terror has unbalanced us or swayed our judgement. Then we must try to regain our sense, our empathy and connection with all being beyond our victimized self. That is part of the purpose and service of the "impartiality" of the Law to all sides. The angry, flailing victim believes vengeance is Right. I suggest "an eye for an eye" means careful and impartial balance, and also "perception".
Then there is the unfortunate blindness of politicians, afflicted by addiction of power and position. To maintain or grow their "fix", the politician will pander to public or backers with quick 'fixes' and manipulative or highly obfuscatory language upon ill-conceived or contrarily effecting bills.
These bills, H.R. 1955/S. 1959, are purposely vaguely worded not to protect us, but to allow license to Abuse. At the narrow behest of some lazy or un-informed, ignorant, too Self-righteous, ambitious or angry, fascists can use this law to be unregulated Righteous Arbiters. There is Wisdom to "Burden" of "Proof", Equal Representation under the Law, and embed in Our Constitution: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." And through wisdom, we distinguish ourselves with "Innocent until Proven Guilty".  
Rather than allow this proposed degradation, it would be better for the Courts and Legislature to interpret or amend our Fourth Amendment to be inclusive of our modern electronic and digital means of "papers and effects".

[truebluegal]

When I first heard about this bill on criminal thought, I could not believe the vote - 404 to 6! After investigating, it turns out that almost no one read the bill. It was shoved through with a whole bunch of bills being rushed so as to end the session, and Ms Harman asked only for an up and down vote with no debate. It seems she assured all the congress members that it would not infringe on The First Amendment....and they believed her!! Only six people bothered to read the bill, incl. Dennis Kucinich who voted "NO!". Ms Milazzo points how the absurdity of a government program that will go around the country issuing subpoenas to people who are writing or expostulating on the faults of our government. Since when can anyone possibly determine that individuals or groups who demonstrate peacefully in strong protest of our government's policies are a threat to the security of this country, and able to be labeled "homegrown terrorists"? It makes no sense in light of our First Amendment, and in light of this country being a democracy "of, by, and for the people". To offer the Rand Corp. a contract to put this thing together just shows how Ms Harman is looking for a way to prop up this government think tank and herself as chair of the Homeland Security Committee. The Senate must vote this awful, McCarthy-like SB 1959 down.

[riozen]

As I said on Lila Garrett's KPFK show this Monday - this legislation is even more egregious than any they have capitulated to so far. STOP THE POLICE BILL  - S. 1959

Brad Parker

[Willl]

Linda:
I real homegrown good job. You are my kind of radical, you little darling.

S. 1959 is the Senate version of HR 1955. Call your senators Friday, December 21.

Use the US Capitol Switchboard toll-free numbers to call your two US Senators.
Make their phones ring right off the desks!! Millions still respect the FIRST AMENDMENT.
1-877-851-6437
1-800-833-6354
1-888-355-3588
1-866-220-0044
1-866-808-0065
1-877-762-8762
1-866-340-9281
1-800-862-5530

Now the war on terror demands another constitutional abridgment. The Collins bill creates a commission with ill-defined but expansive and dangerous powers. It will address the process of "violent radicalization," which is "the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change." It does not adequately define "an extremist belief system," opening the door for abuse. Anyone labeled "terrorist" becomes a non-citizen with few rights.

The evisceration of civil rights has increased in recent years. Many agencies, including the FBI and NSA, have misused the Patriot Act. A whole series of presidential directives and executive orders , coupled with deliberate violation of laws intended to prevent concentration of power, have placed the president in a position where he can potentially subject U.S citizens to control by either a private army or the U.S. military. What current national threat requires our government to lay the legal foundation for martial law?

My nomination for most counter productive bill of 2007, a 22 million solution in search of a problem.

This "internet assault" bill has vague terminology, .first, fourth, amendment and FACA secrecy (Federal Advisory Committee Act) sun-shine problems among others.

Linda's Conclusion needs repetition:
THIS WEEK THE SENATE CAN SUPPORT THE FIRST AMENDMENT, OR LET THE FIRST AMENDMENT DIE.

S. 1959 must NOT pass. Tell your Senators to vote 'NO' on S. 1959.

Email them: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Phone them at: [phone]

[tenayaca]

So, as I've heard this, there were quite a few of our highly paid legislators who never bothered to read this VERY short hatchet job on the Constitution. It was said that Jane rushed it through with only the highly charged title...invoking the name of McVeigh...and all of the lemmings followed her off the cliff.

I called my congressman, Henry Waxman, to ask specifically IF he had read it before voting. I was assured that he HAD read it and that he thought the language about preserving rights was sufficient.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. This is a graduate of UCLA LAW SCHOOL!!! Isn't Constitutional Law a required course?

I think that all of our incumbents should be required to do PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT like teachers, doctors, and nurses...CONSTITUTIONAL LAW should be their first course. Of course, given their stewardship over the last years, we have so little left of it...it's truly becoming an historic document.... or, "just a piece of paper" as the current occupier of the White House says.
###

[ErnestineBass]

Of all the CRAP to come out of Congress in the last seven years, this POS "resolution" takes FIRST PRIZE!!!

Time to clean house, people. Anybody who voted for this should be voted out of office at the soonest possible opportunity, NO EXCEPTIONS!